Addressing the High-Energy Demands of Indoor Cannabis Cultivation

This article is part four of a five-part series exploring the environmental challenges inherent in the existing model of cannabis legality. Previously, we addressed concerns regarding the ecological impacts of pesticide use in the production of cannabis products. This article will analyze the energy-dependency problems of the modern cannabis industry.

Production of high-quality cannabis demands copious amounts of sunlight. Modern production techniques primarily rely on power-hungry lighting and climate control technology. While massive indoor grow facilities offer many advantages, they also create excessive pollution. Following the prohibition of cannabis, grow operations moved indoors to escape detection from members of drug enforcement agencies. As indoor grow equipment became higher-quality and (relatively) more affordable, the increased cannabis quality became a noteworthy advantage of indoor cultivation. Side-by-side comparisons show a more vibrant green color, stickier, smellier buds with more visible trichomes. This, along with modern breeding techniques, is the reason weed from the 20th century is regarded as being so “mild” compared to today's high-potency options. Thus, the increase in profit potential largely offset the high-energy expenses necessitated by indoor grow equipment. 

    Now that over 30 states have legalized either medical or recreational cannabis, grow room electricity consumption for commercial cannabis production accounts for approximately 1% of total electricity used in the USA. This extensive energy consumption is split, nearly equally, between climate control systems and lighting. Puget Sound Energy is one of the few energy companies in the US that incentivizes energy efficiency for cannabis growers. PSE also derives nearly a quarter of electricity from hydroelectric dams, which helps to reduce fossil fuel pollution within the cannabis industry, especially considering that 53 percent of Washington’s licensed cannabis growers are indoor-only.

As we saw in part three of this series, Washington State cannabis producers are possibly facing large increases in the cost of production as policymakers are considering implementing a 2021 bill that would require mandatory testing of certain pesticides for recreational cannabis flower. Estimates suggest it could cost some producers up to $345 per month to satisfy the new requirements. This additional expense places a strenuous burden on producers, who are already pressed to maximize profit in a highly competitive market. Utilizing natural sunlight is the most effective means of reducing costs associated with cannabis production, which will prove imperative as production expenses increase beneath a growing body of regulations. 

Unfortunately, outdoor cannabis often suffers from quality-control issues not shared by indoor crops. More specifically, exposure to the elements and the unpredictability of fluctuating weather patterns can produce yields that are lower in potency, lower in natural terpenes (aroma), and browner in color (less visually appealing). Generally speaking, outdoor crops suffer less predictability than indoor grown cannabis, even though this method is ultimately the most environmentally sustainable. 

To effectively harness the power of natural sunlight, without sacrificing the quality-control of indoor crops, producers will likely begin to incorporate greenhouse production techniques. Greenhouses offer protection from excessive wind, undesirable temperatures, natural predators, and other factors that can hamper the quality of outdoor cannabis, while offering the opportunity to provide plants with a costless source of bioenergy. 

     In addition to reducing production costs, the utilization of natural sunlight also sharply reduces the carbon footprint of cannabis cultivation. It’s estimated that the production of only one kilogram of cannabis creates 4600kg of atmospheric CO2, while greenhouse cannabis production creates only 327kg of atmospheric CO2 on average. In order for cannabis to be a sustainable crop, producers must prioritize creative methods of production that minimize reliance on fossil fuel resources. 

For now, the future of cannabis sustainability is a matter of speculation. There are a number of variables that can ultimately affect the environmental footprint of commercial cannabis production over the long-term. We’ve now looked at packaging waste, pesticide use, and energy consumption; however, these three issues are not the only environmental challenges that arise under legalization, and the topic of cannabis sustainability will likely only complexify following both the adaptation of newer technology and the continuing advancement of cannabis research.